ILNews

Opinions March 3, 2011

March 3, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers, Inc. v. Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, et al.
49A02-1002-PL-125
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers’ motion for a preliminary injunction against the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission to enjoin the commission from issuing new beer dealer’s permits in locations in which the statutory limits on the number of beer dealer’s permits have been met or exceeded. The Commission’s interpretation of 7.1-3 is reasonable and doesn’t violate Title 7.1. The IABR also failed to show its members are likely to suffer irreparable harm if no injunction is issued.

Eddie M. Taylor v. State of Indiana

20A03-1003-CR-256
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine and Class B felony dealing in cocaine. Taylor’s decision to proceed pro se was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made and he was not denied the right to counsel, as he was appointed counsel the day before his trial was scheduled to begin.

State of Indiana v. Danny LeFlore (NFP)
49A05-1010-CR-698
Criminal. Reverses denial of the state’s motion to use pretrial statements of witnesses who had been excluded. Remands with instructions that the trial court hear the state’s evidence and make a determination as to whether LeFlore’s conduct rendered the witnesses unavailable for cross-examination and thus, whether LeFlore forfeited his right to confrontation.

J.L. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-JV-791
Juvenile. Affirms restitution order following adjudication as a delinquent child for committing what would be Class D felony theft if committed by an adult.

C.H. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-JV-912
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for committing acts that would be battery, criminal recklessness, and dangerous possession of a firearm if committed by an adult. Affirms order committing C.H. to the Department of Correction.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.C.; J.C. v. Tippecanoe County DCS (NFP)
79A04-1007-JT-495
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. by the time anybody gets to such files they will probably have been totally vacuumed anyways. they're pros at this at universities. anything to protect their incomes. Still, a laudable attempt. Let's go for throat though: how about the idea of unionizing football college football players so they can get a fair shake for their work? then if one of the players is a pain in the neck cut them loose instead of protecting them. if that kills the big programs, great, what do they have to do with learning anyways? nada. just another way for universities to rake in the billions even as they skate from paying taxes with their bogus "nonprofit" status.

  2. Um the affidavit from the lawyer is admissible, competent evidence of reasonableness itself. And anybody who had done law work in small claims court would not have blinked at that modest fee. Where do judges come up with this stuff? Somebody is showing a lack of experience and it wasn't the lawyers

  3. My children were taken away a year ago due to drugs, and u struggled to get things on track, and now that I have been passing drug screens for almost 6 months now and not missing visits they have already filed to take my rights away. I need help.....I can't loose my babies. Plz feel free to call if u can help. Sarah at 765-865-7589

  4. Females now rule over every appellate court in Indiana, and from the federal southern district, as well as at the head of many judicial agencies. Give me a break, ladies! Can we men organize guy-only clubs to tell our sob stories about being too sexy for our shirts and not being picked for appellate court openings? Nope, that would be sexist! Ah modernity, such a ball of confusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmRsWdK0PRI

  5. LOL thanks Jennifer, thanks to me for reading, but not reading closely enough! I thought about it after posting and realized such is just what was reported. My bad. NOW ... how about reporting who the attorneys were raking in the Purdue alum dollars?

ADVERTISEMENT